Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
#1885012
TLRippon wrote:
Who are these old guard types, I’m not sure I’ve come across them.
We teach to a standard set by the CAA, if they want us to change what we teach then they need to change the standard so go and lobby them, convince them that GPS is a better bet instead of moaning on Internet forums.


My last but one instructor seminar was run by AOPA in 2014, and led by a couple of very experienced, very respected, somewhat over 60, instructors who taught a session on navigation that made it extremely clear they regarded GPS as firmly secondary, and never to be used as another other than a backup in the cockpit, and never to be trusted. They are, or at-least five years ago were, at the top of the tree setting the instructional agenda.

I'm glad to say that my last instructor seminar, run by On-track in 2020 (and I'm looking at the handouts to remind myself as I type this) took a somewhat different approach and made it clear that traditional and modern means of navigation should be taught side-by side, and covered the potential problems with both.

So I'm content that there's a trajectory of modernisation, but unless a bunch of very senior instructors have been removed from the community in the last half dozen years completely, or have had a complete attitude change, I believe that old guard are still out there and influential.

G
StratoTramp, David Wood, RisePilot and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885013
PeteSpencer wrote:
Rob L wrote:Safety Sense Leaflets were just that...leaflets.

If they were called Safety Sense pdfs, they wouldn't have the same audience. I'd be disappointed if they all went that way (especially the Interception Procedures (SSL 11 which appears to have been withdrawn on 3 June 2019 Link: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... il&id=1165)


The original is archived here: http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/Members%20 ... ignals.pdf

Quite why the Interception SSL has been removed is beyond me.


This made me go and have a look at interception procedures in the current NATS-AIP-Enroute (Interception procedures:)

I was under the impression that it was mandatory to carry a copy of Interception Procedures in the aeroplane: We have a copy of the years-out-of-date leaflet in the aeroplane marked 'do not remove' in red and I have always carried a copy in my kneeboard.

But I can't find the mandatory carriage of the procedures specified anywhere. :lol:

Have I been wrong all these years or has this requirement been removed?

Askin' for a friend :thumleft:


It depends on the licence you are using to fly and/or the type of aeroplane you are flying.
#1885017
PeteSpencer wrote:I was under the impression that it was mandatory to carry a copy of Interception Procedures in the aeroplane: We have a copy of the years-out-of-date leaflet in the aeroplane marked 'do not remove' in red and I have always carried a copy in my kneeboard.

But I can't find the mandatory carriage of the procedures specified anywhere. :lol:


If you're flying a Part-21 aircraft it is in NCO.GEN.135.(a).(11)
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885069
patowalker wrote:Carrying the interception leaflet in non-Part 21 aircraft flying abroad is recommended. The alternative is memorising
ENR 1.12


That was the point of my thread: The interception leaflet has been withdrawn so I guess the only alternative is to print off 1.12 which is text only or, as we do carry a SSL dated from mid noughties..... :roll:

EDIT: Tx SM:
'Interception stuff must be carried

C'mon NATS/CAA/Whoever, fingers out and up date the 'kin 'Interception Procedures' leaflet. :twisted:
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885074
PeteSpencer wrote:
patowalker wrote:Carrying the interception leaflet in non-Part 21 aircraft flying abroad is recommended. The alternative is memorising
ENR 1.12


That was the point of my thread: The interception leaflet has been withdrawn so I guess the only alternative is to print off 1.12 which is text only or, as we do carry a SSL dated from mid noughties..... :roll:

EDIT: Tx SM:
'Interception stuff must be carried

C'mon NATS/CAA/Whoever, fingers out and up date the 'kin 'Interception Procedures' leaflet. :twisted:


They already did - it's 5 pages in the Skyway code .. or alternatively just download the whole thing onto your phone and you have complied with the regs. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... on%203.pdf
T6Harvard, JAFO liked this
By Fellsteruk
#1885082
MiG up ya chuff…. Lol

I was transiting Liverpool the other week at night heading to seaforth from the south when I was told “Hawk approaching from behind at speed will pass underneath” followed by “traffic sighted”

Next thing, the hawk comes wizzing past me port side and breaks hard to the left.

Amazing but hopefully the closest I ever get to being intercepted.
kanga liked this
#1885169
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
GrahamB wrote:
However, Moving Map technology should not be the sole means of planning or navigation.

Bottom of page 4. Discuss.


Non-sense statement.

They cannot help themselves.


Which bit is non-sense? Sole means for planning or sole means for navigation.

I think not allowing an EFB as sole means for planning is silly. For example the following reasons no longer hold water “you can’t trust NOTAMS unless you’ve used the clunky slow and still open to error official site” or reading a F214 is better than having a interactive / graphical weather model etc

However not using an EFB as sole means of navigation still stands. There’s a difference between saying don’t use it as primary navigation (that’s what most sensible people do) and sole means (that’s what unwise people do).
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8